Silent Majority Speaks

Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship

Spin, not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's chosen method of communication. Ordinary people are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question which throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member might reveal himself or herself to be a human being like us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might tell the truth. Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004

 

WWW silentmajorityspeaks.com

Blunkett to give away our 'front door key' today

By Matthew Hickley and Paul Eastham - Daily Mail, October 25, 2004

David Blunkett will today sign away Britain's power to veto new European laws on immigration and asylum. The Home Secretary will agree to scrap the right to block controversial legislation at a meeting of interior ministers from the 25 member states in Luxembourg.

But while Mr Blunkett will sign away the veto, he was light night fighting to stop Brussels going even farther. In particular, he said the Government would reject proposals under the Hague Programme - to be discussed at the summit - to establish a central processing agency to issue entry visas for the whole of the EU.

Former British Ambassador, Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch Think-tank, said yesterday that abandoning the veto was 'a serious mistake'. He added: "Other European countries have been waiving asylum seekers through to Britain. We should know better by now than to hand over our front door key to Brussels."

Meanwhile, Mr Blunkett phoned his opposite number from the Netherlands - current holders of the EU presidency - to say he would not accept radical plans under the Hague Programme to weaken Britain's control of its borders. The Home Secretary will insist that the power to issue entry visas should remain with each nation state. He also warned that the Government would not agree to the creation of a force of EU border guards, controlled by Brussels, to patrol frontiers.

The agreement to scrap the national veto on new European laws has been hammered out to cope with the EU's expansion to 25 members and the growing difficulty of reaching unanimous agreement. Ministers claim it is a 'win-win' position for them, making reforms on cross-border co-operation far easier while the power to opt out of laws they do not support has been retained.

The deal will extend qualified majority voting - which ends national veto powers - to cover asylum issues, immigration and border control from next April. Labour is against a headlong rush towards a proposed Common European Asylum System. But surrendering the veto means it will not longer be able to block such a move should enough states support it. With immigration and asylum certain to be major issues at the next election, Labour risks being accused of being 'soft' by handling more powers to Brussels.

Immigration figures have doubled since Tony Blair took power in 1997, and the Home Office is still struggling to remove tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers after their claims were rejected as bogus. The Home Office is playing down the significance of today's agreements in Luxembourg, pointing out that Britain will still have an opt-out on laws it does not like.

But critics said that by abandoning the veto ministers were surrendering fundamental sovereign powers over crucial areas of the state's responsibility. The Tories said that scrapping the veto would leave Labour under massive pressure to accept laws it might otherwise oppose. Tory Home Affairs spokesman David Davis warned it would lead to a 'whole new area' of EU law which could be against Britain's interests.

However, Ministers would find themselves under 'inexorable pressure' from other EU member states to adopt the legislation. Mr Davis added: "It is crucial to the British interest that we retain the right of veto in immigration and asylum matters. The Government should stand up for the people and reject these plans.

 For the health of our democracy, we, the people of the United Kingdom, must find a way to force Mr Blair to resign

Mr Blair has lied and deceived us over Iraq. He must resign at once. Do you agree? Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly Don't know Don't care Please click one of the links above to cast your vote Current results

Such defiance of the democratic process and the will of the majority of we people of the UK, must be exposed by voters as a matter or urgency, and not just in the two by-elections we have had this July and the European elections in June 2004. But how can this be done?

The most effective way of getting our deceitful PM to resign would be to mobilise the army of Labour MPs currently in the House of Commons and get them to demand it, the loss of their seat to be a penalty if they did not. All voters in Labour-held constituencies need to write a letter along these lines to their local Labour MPs:

Dear Despite his absolute and unequivocal assurances over the past year of the serious risk to our security of Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction', Prime Minister Blair has admitted, that the threat was non-existent. For that critical error of judgement and for his gross incompetence in handling this very important issue, I ask you to take immediate steps to ensure that Tony Blair does the honourable thing and resign without delay.. I would therefore be much obliged if you would propose and help mobilise a Parliamentary vote of 'No Confidence' in Mr Blair which, despite Labour's huge majority, would leave the PM with no option but to resign. If I get no reply to this letter, I shall assume you will continue to support Mr Blair as our Prime Minister. In such circumstances I shall not vote for you in the forthcoming General Election. Signed:

Simple, non-violent, protest letters along these lines on a variety of issues could be the basis for re-vitalising our democracy and increasing voters' interest and participation in politics. Download a printable copy of the above letter here.

There is another way for the voice of the silent majority to be heard, a voice that made sure broken promises would not only be revealed, but punished in subsequent elections.

In the year available before the General Election expected in 2005, many topics are available as ammunition, each one asking questions.  A weapon for our purpose will be the results of Opinion Polls in individual  constituencies using ICM, NOP, Gallop, Mori  or YouGov.

Questions suggested for this purpose are listed here.

CAST YOUR VOTE ON A VARIETY OF OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES HERE.

Current and prospective Parliamentary candidates of all Parties running for election could share a platform at public forums in every constituency. They would be presented with  the results of polls on this issue expressed by the majority of voters in that constituency.

The candidates could be asked if their own views and that of their Party manifesto corresponded with the polls, and if not, how they intended to represent the will of the majority of local voters.  Local and National Press, Radio and TV coverage would be arranged and the results published on this web site.

Here is another powerful strategy for using your vote effectively in the forthcoming General Election. Send your sitting and prospective MPs a letter defining your requirements if they want your vote. This example deals with the proposed EU Constitutional Treaty.

Your letters would end: "If you do not answer this letter, I shall take it that you intend to follow the Government line. I shall act accordingly in the forthcoming General Election.

Or why not create a questionnaire that you send to all the candidates in your constituency, getting them to give yes/no answers to questions of your choice, and ending it with the same paragraph(above).

Download a printable example of the questionnaire.

It is high time for the people of this United Kingdom to stop allowing themselves to be manipulated by politicians. We need our representatives in Parliament to genuinely reflect the view of the majority in their own constituency, even if this means going against their personal and/or their party's policy. While they may argue their case, hoping to change the minds of the majority in their constituency, they should ultimately be obliged to reflect the majority view of those who elect them. 

It will be argued by politicians of all parties that most voters don't have the knowledge necessary to express an opinion on important subjects at issue, and that our vote is a form of delegated democracy. We should argue that it is their duty to ensure that we voters do have ready access to such information as is necessary to form an intelligent opinion. That, after all, is one main purpose of Opposition Parties in our Parliamentary Democracy.

Most important of all, such proceedings would rekindle in voters their latent interest and obligation to cast their vote, knowing that the candidate of their choice would be more likely to act in accordance with their wishes. A much higher turnout in elections would be the result.

Contact your local Party Chairman. Gain his support for setting up public forums in your constituency on these, as well as any other relevant topics, well before the next General Election expected in 2005. You should then, depending on the integrity of the candidate of your choice, feel fairly certain that your view on any subject being debated in Parliament will more accurately be reflected by your representative in that assembly.